Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No.GA‑78 of 1985, decided on 16th October, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑File lost causing delay in permission of Solicitor to Government of Punjab to file appeal‑‑Delay, in circumstances, condoned.
Qazi Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
The decision, dated 24‑5‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby accepting the ex parte evidence produced by the respondent, he was directed to be re‑instated with full back benefits.
2. The ground on which the services of the respondent were terminated as of absence from 22‑7‑1983. Neither any charge‑sheet was given, nor any inquiry was held. The appellant was proceeded ex parte, so he could not produce evidence in the learned lower Court. Copy of attendance register of August, 1983 rather shows that the respondent remained present. A note is given that the respondent was absent but afterwards marked himself present. Since no evidence was produced, it is not established that actually the respondent had absented himself and if so, for how many days. He was thus wrongly removed from service. The proper thing for the appellant was to get the ex parte decision set aside by the learned lower Court itself and to get the case re-decided after producing evidence. Since no evidence in favour of the appellant is present on the learned lower Court's file, the impugned order cannot be set aside. However, the respondent was wrongly allowed back benefits. He did not assert that after dismissal he remained jobless.
3. The appeal is time‑barred, but the grounds given for condonation of delay do not stand rebutted by the respondent as no counter‑affidavit has been filed. The plea is that the file was lost and thus delay was caused in getting permission from the Solicitor to file appeal. So the delay is condoned.
4. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.
A.E. Appeal party accented
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer